UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Utter bobbins]

I’m sure somebody at City will have a screen shot on their phone

 

[Metalartin]

Wayback Machine may have it at some point.

Risky to change it and say they haven’t if that’s what they’ve done.

Then where did it come from? How can we all be convinced we saw those words?

edit: Just seen the clarification "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" is the answer, sometimes it's better just to read the shite in it's entirety rather than rely on the browser search function. He has a shit way with words for a journalist though.

 

[razman]

It says "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" which is what the article always said.

My free articles are over on NYT article.

City mentioned below in their statement.

The New York Times report citing “people familiar with the case” is therefore extremely concerning.

Basically similar right ?

 

[Postman Pep]

It's not Talksport he should be worried about...

ok ...again I hope you're right

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

This is new....will be very interesting.

Explanation of emails and further internal finances

Nope, the reports also suggested the evidence we have since presented to the panel is not sufficient and is still unsatisfactory.

The outing of a Nigerian FIFA delegate via hacked documents has also been offered as a legal precendent.

 

[Kompany Car]

If that was that so called journalist that was on about 4:30pm , well what a wanker , "City over spent by £79M , no £149M because they can't sell tickets , they've haven't got the fans, haven't got a Worldwide fan base " . Wtf may as well have got a blinked braindead fucker rawk to talk about it .

Isnt he an Arse supporter? That same team we played on the 1st March last year where none of their so called fans turned up because it was too cold yet the away end was full.
If it’s about fans turning up that he’s measuring popularity on, he needs to have a look at his own club because the Arse ticket holders I work with tell me it’s very rare that the stadium is full.

 

[jrb]

The wording is on the OS.

 

[domalino]

My free articles are over on NYT article.

City mentioned below in their statement.

The New York Times report citing “people familiar with the case” is therefore extremely concerning.

Basically similar right ?

Yes, the debate here is not whether the NYT have UEFA sources, but whether they edited that part out of the article after City's statement.

City's wording is probably from the version they got sent to comment on before the publication.

 

[Henkeman]

Nope, the reports also suggested the evidence we have since presented to the panel is not sufficient and is still unsatisfactory.

The outing of a Nigerian FIFA delegate via hacked documents has also been offered as a legal precendent.

There is a potential difference here in that the hacker is not being charged as a whistle-blower but as an extortionist.

 

[p.taker]

Something very weird is going on.

Everyone who saw the new break earlier today saw it... it was either "sources close to the case" or "people familiar with the case"... Even City's legal team commented on it. I can't seem to find it in the tweets or the article.

Lets just hope someone had the sense to take a screenshot. As NYT/Tariq have gone into full on denial by the looks of it.

I've found a snapshot of the article using archive.org and I think you are incorrect.

 

[Machiavelli]

It says "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" which is what the article always said.

I will never understand this infantile obsession with quotes.

;-)

 

[John Wayne]

It says "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" which is what the article always said.

The only "people" who should have "knowledge of the investigation" are those in the CFCB IC.

I am very interested by the use of the word "people", as opposed to "person" or "source". This can mean one of two things - 1) more than one member of the CFCB IC has been leaking information, or 2) elements within the CFCB IC have been leaking information to more than one second-hand source. In either case, the club has strong grounds to allege that a smear campaign is being orchestrated.

 

[razman]

Yes, the debate here is not whether the NYT have UEFA sources, but whether they edited that part out of the article after City's statement.

City's wording is probably from the version they got sent to comment on before the publication.

Next few days will be interesting

 

[hello]

It says "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" which is what the article always said.

That’s more than enough to suggest information city made available to the ic in good faith which had subsequently been leaked to the ny times.

 

[Metalartin]

I've found a snapshot of the article using archive.org and I think you are incorrect.

See my edit on my last post(someone has clarified it), people paraphrased what he said because it was so poorly put. "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" so City's statement still stands. The way his editor was defending Tariq without clarifying the misunderstanding made matters worse, it appeared as though they were denying they said they had inside sources all together. That was my only concern anyway.

 

[hello]

See my edit, people paraphrased what he said because it was so poorly put. "According to the people with knowledge of the investigation" so City's statement still stands. The way his editor was defending Tariq without clarifying the misunderstanding made matters worse, it appeared as though they were denying they said they had inside sources all together.

He’s a fucking journalist, isn’t he supposed to covey news and fact in a legible manner or am I showing my age in such lofty expectations?

 

[pavelsrnicek]

There is a potential difference here in that the hacker is not being charged as a whistle-blower but as an extortionist.

I believe, but can’t be certain, that this could be a significant factor.

I wonder did he make contact with anyone associated with the club looking for money...

 

[cleavers]

A statement from Uefa said: “We only comment off the record to journalists on ongoing investigations regarding financial fair play matters.”

Corrected for UEFA....

 

[Newman Noggs]

The only "people" who should have "knowledge of the investigation" are those in the CFCB IC.

I am very interested by the use of the word "people", as opposed to "person" or "source". This can mean one of two things - 1) more than one member of the CFCB IC has been leaking information, or 2) elements within the CFCB IC have been leaking information to more than one second-hand source. In either case, the club has strong grounds to allege that a smear campaign is being orchestrated.

This is absolutely right. The semantics are just wriggling. No-one who isn't close to the case, i.e. only those directly involved, should be "familiar" with it. Anything else is a breach of confidentiality at best.

The fact that details of the recommended punishment are so specific is a further indicator that it is someone "close to" or "familiar with" the case, however you want to word it and however much the press and UEFA squirm and dissemble.

Furthermore, it is evident that this isn't an accidental leak. This is clearly deliberate in its timing and its targeting and is, therefore, malicious.

 

[Elbow beards]

Remember khaldoons "take the pinch" statement? . They won't be taking anymore pinches. I think the knives are drawn now.